Author
Topic: Christian Activism (Never mind) (Read 5257 times)

Someone said: Yes, some of the early colonies such as Massachusetts, were founded by Christians with the Bible as the law document. However, the United States of America was founded by Deists and Masons.

Quote

Shawn replied: The idea of turning the US into a theocracy scares me. We have seen how that has turned out in the Middle East.

* Deists and Masons were capable of being Christian Universalists. And Christians were definitely involved in founding the U.S. It wasn't just Deists and Masons. The U.S. was the culmination of Christian practice at virtually self-government for over 150 years. The Mathers, Winthrops and others helped put New England on Christian foundations. The Quakers certainly did so especially in Pennsylvania. Even Georgia started out as an anti-slave colony.* Every government is already a theocracy. It's either founded on the law of the jungle, the Beast, or it's founded on the law of Love, the Bible.* Good people have made great sacrifices in the past to see to it that we inherited a government founded on love, a commonwealth for the common good of all.* It's the Beast (Satan) who tries to persuade us that government should be separate from God's law. That way the Beast can take it over by default, which is what's been happening for over a hundred years, eroding our freedom and increasing enmity among the people. The Beast feeds on enmity.

Guess I'm the beast then, because I certainly do not want to live in a country under theocratic rule. Why? Because I then have government telling me how and what/who to worship. Separation of church and state ensures me that the government won't tell me what worship should look like...won't use the name of Christ to commit acts of war and murder. I also like people being able to seek other faiths without persecution...which ensures that i will be able to seek Christ without persecution. No, a theocracy is never really God running the government...it's man using religion to control. No thank you to any of that.

While waiting to hear from you, here's my present idea.I'm trying to hire a recruiter to start a weekly anti-war, anti-corruption young people's local gathering (St. Louis area), as well as a weekly online discussion. The latter would be for sharing ideas with people in other areas for starting similar gatherings there.

The gatherings have to be fun, informative and inspiring. What else?

I m not sure what the unemployment rate is in St LouisBut couldn't be that low that it would be hard to hire some one especially for a job that sounds like so much fun.Have you tried more politically orientated web sites?

We could debate theocracy and America and church/state all day, but it is important to go back to the USA constitution to see the exact wording. It is very precise: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What does that mean? It means, and remember we're dealing with 18th century English here, that the national congress is forbidden to make any law having to do (respecting) a State Church (establishment). It's that simple, and all the hot air about church and state separation just indicates a misunderstanding of the language.

Logged

Socrates taught Plato. Plato taught Aristotle. Aristotle tutored the son of Philip of Macedon. This boy grew up to become Alexander the Great, largely by slaughtering a lot of people. That's philosophy.

Jesus spoke the Truth. He blessed the poor. He healed the sick. He even raised the dead. He died on a cross for us, lived again, and came back long enough to tell us to love one another. That's religion.

I do understand your view Shawn, and I have some of those same leanings. What I would probably primariy choose though would be something that's probably gone (if it ever existed) and won't be until God truly reigns and satan is bound.

We could debate theocracy and America and church/state all day, but it is important to go back to the USA constitution to see the exact wording. It is very precise: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. What does that mean? It means, and remember we're dealing with 18th century English here, that the national congress is forbidden to make any law having to do (respecting) a State Church (establishment). It's that simple, and all the hot air about church and state separation just indicates a misunderstanding of the language.

Laz, I've got this thing going on right now on facebook about this topic, started with someone complaining at University of Tennessee about a prayer at a football game. I made the comment that if I were in another culture, I'd expect to hear their prayer, respect that, and move on, etc. Most agreed, a couple got all into the Constitution thing, one guy telling me if I didn't like the Constitution I could move to another country.

Anyway, I personally wouldn't want to live in a theocracy unless it was established by God Himself (which will happen), but also, I DO want to live in a culture where the prevailing belief is of the God of Abraham, Father of Jesus Christ, and where that is allowed to pervade society - WITH freedom, respect for others, nothing FORCED, etc. - which IMO, a true environment of the prevailing knowledge and worship of YHWH in Spirit and truth would include (respect and love for others), unless and until God Himself changes all hearts to Him.

I shared this in the discussion on my FB page with the "move out of the country, the law says..." guy, and your post made me think to share it here;

"So if I were at a soccer game for instance, where most of the participants were of Arab descent and culture, if they wanted to have a prayer to Allah, I guarantee you I wouldn't go marching around trying to figure out how I could shut them up. I'd figure I was "on their turf", and it was to be expected. So as I said, I'd respect their right to pray according to their custom and culture, and when done, move on and participate in mine.......The refrain of "separation of church and state" was in a letter as one man's personal opinion, not in any official state document. OUR CULTURE in the U.S. has historically been Judeo-Christian, with allowances made for other religions and no one forced to convert to any particular religion.

As an example for those who may be unaware of the issue as it historically truly was, Bryan Fischer writes; "The Continental Congress, which gave us the Declaration of Independence in 1776, convened for the first time on September 7, 1774.

The first legislative action taken was a motion to open this first session in prayer. The motion was opposed. Aha, you say — separation of church and state!

But it was opposed for reasons other than you might expect. It was not that the delegates were opposed to prayer, but rather that they weren't sure which Christian clergyman to choose for the honor, as there were, according to Founding Father John Adams, Episcopalians, Quakers, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists present.

"Any gentleman of Piety"

The logjam was broken when Samuel Adams, the Father of the American Revolution, "arose," according to John Adams' account, "and said that he was no bigot, and could hear a Prayer from any gentleman of Piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his Country." (Note to the ACLU: according to this Founder, opposition to public invocations is a form of bigotry.)

As a result of Sam Adams' intervention, the motion carried and an Episcopalian clergyman, Rev. Jacob Duche', was prevailed upon to open the next morning's session in prayer.

Psalm 35 — "Contend, O Lord, with those who contend with me"

Duche' first read several prayers "in the established form," and then read the assigned passage from the Book of Common Prayer for that day, Psalm 35. (The horror: not only multiple prayers, but Bible reading, right there in the open, in Congress!)

Providentially, this Psalm opens with these words: "Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler and rise for my help. Draw the spear and javelin against my pursuers. Say to my soul, 'I am your salvation.' Let them be put to shame and dishonor who seek after my life. Let them be turned back and disappointed who devise evil against me."

Adams writes that this passage from the Scripture electrified the Founders. "I never saw a greater effect upon an audience. It seemed as if heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that morning."

So Lazarus do you want the US government to be a Christian based theocracy? Do you want to mix government and religion? What do you personally believe the founding Fathers were trying to convey with their language?

I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy unless it was established by God himself.

AMEN! To that.

Thanks. It would probably be fair to say as for my view, I just want true things of God permeating our culture and for it to be free, open, and affecting everything. But that's not the way it is, and I don't want it forced by man.

I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy unless it was established by God himself.

AMEN! To that.

Thanks. It would probably be fair to say as for my view, I just want true things of God permeating our culture and for it to be free, open, and affecting everything. But that's not the way it is, and I don't want it forced by man.

But I also don't want it forced out by a minority. So it does set up a conundrum.

So Lazarus do you want the US government to be a Christian based theocracy? Do you want to mix government and religion? What do you personally believe the founding Fathers were trying to convey with their language?

In the end, it is a matter of balance. I would argue that the founding fathers wanted the government to operate under the influence of Christianity in a non-denominational sense, without carrying out the agenda of any church, denomination or sect. They had the example of intolerance, persecution, and religious war back in Europe to go on.

Logged

Socrates taught Plato. Plato taught Aristotle. Aristotle tutored the son of Philip of Macedon. This boy grew up to become Alexander the Great, largely by slaughtering a lot of people. That's philosophy.

Jesus spoke the Truth. He blessed the poor. He healed the sick. He even raised the dead. He died on a cross for us, lived again, and came back long enough to tell us to love one another. That's religion.

A true theocracy is rule by God. The theocracy we need is in our personal lives. Human rulers, even devout ones, will sin, do wrong, and make mistakes. God was the ruler in Israel and things went fine until the people asked for a king "like" the pagan nations around them had. It's difficult enough for a person to run his own life and it is a personality problem for one person to want to rule over another.It's in an old rock song but it's still true today, "He can't even run his own life, I'll be damned if he'll run mine."Paul said we must obey God and not men.You are in a theocracy if Gods rule in your life supercedes that of others.A democracy is majority rule. One person, one vote, each issue.A republic, (which we have) the majority elects those that rule and make the rules.There is not now, nor has there ever been a true democratic government.That's why we pledge allegiance "to the Republic"

Logged

"Why do so many people think that the Bible is only inspired at certain points - and that THEY are inspired to pick out which points?"

What are members' ideas for Christian activism? While waiting to hear from you, here's my present idea. I'm trying ... to start a weekly anti-war, anti-corruption young people's local gathering [and a similar one] online.... The gatherings have to be fun, informative and inspiring. What else?

* I regret somewhat that I helped take the discussion off into political issues.* I really meant only to discuss Christian activism, not politics. I think it should be up to each local gathering to decide for itself how to be active against war and corruption.* But don't others share interest in forming local young people's gatherings for the common good and against war and corruption? If so, what are your inspired ideas on how to start and maintain such gatherings?

* But don't others share interest in forming local young people's gatherings for the common good and against war and corruption? If so, what are your inspired ideas on how to start and maintain such gatherings?

Common good is debatable, war is politics, corruption is politics.I see your point Lloyd and agree that there may be some interest. I just believe it's naive to think that you won't have a worldview, culture view, political view clash. I've been in many of these groups and they tend to degenerate into arguing about trifles. I once saw a church split over the color of the carpet in the foyer! How's that for people of God concerned with obeying Jesus commandment to love one another.

Logged

"Why do so many people think that the Bible is only inspired at certain points - and that THEY are inspired to pick out which points?"